It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
When there's a debate, you always have evidence for and against the underlying subject.

I never hear any evidence against extraterrestrials and or extradimensial beings. I hear a lot of evidence for things like abduction accounts, pictures, video, radar, trace evidence and more. I never hear any evidence against.

We have found liquid water on Mars, there's billions of earth like planets, we look at things like extremaphiles,extra dimensions, the multiverse and more.

What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth? What evidence out there prohibits alien abductions from occuring?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


With respect, I don't think you can apply the analogy of a debate where you have an argument two ways. I think believers have to prove a case for the existence of something - it can't be the other way round.
But here's my 2 cents. The world is so vast, I think if we were getting visitations, there would be a lot more sightings by now. Regarding the existing sightings/reports, these could be imagination, delusion or fabrication.
And I simply don't buy the argument that 'the universe is so vast, they have to exist'. There is no logic in that reasoning!
I don't say it's not possible and I don't say they exist. It's possible, that's all.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by unicorn1
 


Saying it's possible doesn't mean anything, I'm talking about evidence.

You have to have evidence to weigh. We don't have to prove anything. Nobody is making the claim of proof. I'm talking about evidence for and against.

With your criteria, we couldn't debate for or against things like parallel universes, extra-dimensions or the Higgs Boson. These thing havn't been "proven" yet we debate for and against them.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Wrong question. The burden of proof is on the claimant. No one has to "prove" that UFO's don't exist. The people who claim that they *do* exist need to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just their unsupported claims, which are worth just about nothing.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
It's impossible to show evidence that something never happened anywhere. There is certainly no scientific argument against extraterrestrial life. There are arguments against the plausibility of extraterrestrial visitation, such as Jacques Vallée's opposition to the ETH theory, summarized in his paper, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990. IMHO his interdimensional hypothesis is as likely as the ETH. Why would interdimensional travelers be more likely to manipulate human consciousness, masquerade and abduct than ETs is unclear. The 5 arguments are good against naive ETH that we are being visited by nearby civilizations only, traveling through normal space to get to us (not through hyperspace / extra-dimensions as a shortcut). A journey that would require a huge investment in time and energy and would result in more consistent, less random UFOs and aliens apparitions than generally reported.

[edit on 2009-11-9 by nablator]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
pseudo-skeptics please refer to SCEPCOP.....


There are organized group of scoffers masquerading under the term "skeptics" who deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment. They are debunkers who tend to distort, dismiss and obfuscate any phenomenon that challenges a conventional materialistic view of reality. In truth, they are not true skeptics engaging in open inquiry, but selective debunkers with an agenda to defend the establishment. That's why we call them "pseudo-skeptics". A "true skeptic" engages in open inquiry and doubt toward all views and belief systems, including their own and those of the establishment. But these "pseudo-skeptics" never question the views of the establishment, materialistic science or anything presented as "official".

Common Fallacies of Pseudo-Skeptics:

Double Standards
Contradictions and Lies
Denial of Evidence
Dismissing testimonies and experiences as invalid
Cherry picking of evidence Selective Skepticism
Straw man arguments
Santa Claus gambit
Occam's Razor
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence


www.debunkingskeptics.com...



[edit on 9/11/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
So you would like to see some hostile evidence of extraterrestrials, i guess the video below can give you an indication that we have been very careful and watching as they are watching.




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Obviously you don't understand that you cannot prove a negative.

Lets say in a court case someone is accused of murder and they know the time frame the victim was killed. An example of a way you prove the person is innocent is to provide proof that the person was elsewhere during the time that person was killed. So you are actually proving where someone was, and therefore someone could not have killed the person.

But in something like UFO's, its not like a criminal case. Its like saying 'Prove God exists' or 'Prove God doesn't exist'. People can provide lots of proof of intelligent design but cannot show scientific proof of a lack of design. Its like one person saying, "Dick loved Jane." Someone else disagrees. The first person says "Prove it." Point is buddy, you cannot prove a negative.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Honestly ,guys we've been here how long ?
timelines.ws...

600000BC Dr. Leakey discovered oldest human skull to date, 600,000 years old, on Jul 17, 1959.
(MC, 7/17/02)

Two oldest Cultures known to man talked about Flying Beings?????

Weird Coincidences from Sumerians and Mayans?

They all were extremely good with the Stars and solar system!



Finding all these werid Skulls ?

paranormal.about.com...
www.burlingtonnews.net...









[edit on 9-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Nobody said you need to prove a negative. I didn't say anything about proof. We debate things all the time without proof.

We debate parallel universes, no proof there.

We debate extra dimensions, no proof there.

We debate time travel, no proof there.

We debate the Higgs Boson, no proof there.

I didn't say anything about proof, I said "EVIDENCE."

We debate the evidence for and against things all of the time.

The skeptics and debunkers always ask for evidence and evidence for the underlying subject is presented all the time. You never see any evidence against.

It has nothing to do with proving a negative because I didn't ask you for proof. I asked you for evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrials/extradimensional exist and the evidence against visitation.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


You're still missing the point. Actually, you're missing two different points. The first point you're missing is the nature of the "ET / no ET" debate. Some debates are comparative in nature ("The Saints are a better football team than the Rams" would be one such). In that sort of debate, both sides are, indeed, expected to present evidence in support of their position, the bodies of evidence (or, in the case of Saints vs Rams, the bodies of the cheerleaders) are compared to one another, and a conclusion is reached. Other debates are exclusive in nature...they contrast points of view that are mutually exclusive. The ET / No ET debate falls into this category...obviously, if ETs exist, they cannot also not exist. When a debate is of this form, the usual procedure is for the point of view that challenges the status quo to be supported by evidence, which is then tested for validity. In other words, it falls on the shoulders of those folks who believe that ETs exist to provide proof that they do. This may not seem 'fair', but if you think about it, the debate pretty well has to be framed this way. Why? Because while it's fairly simple to list things that would constitute proof that ETs exist, it's almost impossible to compile a list of things that would prove that they don't. That doesn't constitute proof that they do, it simply shows the basis for the oft-heard "you can't prove a negative".

The second point that you're missing is that not every skeptic thinks we're alone in the universe. Some of us are *very* skeptical, not because we don't believe in life Somewhere Out There, but because we do...but in order to prove that it exists, we have to weed out the huge volume of pure crap (I would use stronger language, but the mods wouldn't like me) that's been injected into the debate by the ignorant (who think every light in the sky is an alien invasion fleet), the opportunistic (who realize that they can sell books without end to people if they string together enough photographs, photoshop projects and pseudo-science), and the jerks (who think it's funny to pollute the evidence on purpose just to provoke a reaction). Buried among all the effluvia from those folks are bits and pieces of solid data...but the only way to separate the data from the drivel is by being as rigorous (and skeptical) as possible.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Some of the recent things that really blew my mind is the documentary "I know what I saw".

When talking about these cases, I cannot simply rule out the possibility (or probability) that the person is lying, pulling off a prank or just nuts. But when it comes to a whole townfull of people telling the same story.. it's very hard for me to believe that all these people are in it together. I mean.. a 40+ mother of a family, a young couple, couple middle aged individuals etc. Everything is possible 'tho.

Also, it's very hard for me to believe that we would be capable of building a floating ship size of a aircraft carrier.

Yes, I demand evidence. I just cannot believe blindly what people tell me.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Nobody said you need to prove a negative. I didn't say anything about proof. We debate things all the time without proof.

We debate parallel universes, no proof there.

We debate extra dimensions, no proof there.

We debate time travel, no proof there.

We debate the Higgs Boson, no proof there.

I didn't say anything about proof, I said "EVIDENCE."

We debate the evidence for and against things all of the time.

The skeptics and debunkers always ask for evidence and evidence for the underlying subject is presented all the time. You never see any evidence against.

It has nothing to do with proving a negative because I didn't ask you for proof. I asked you for evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrials/extradimensional exist and the evidence against visitation.


Buddy you don't get the area of debate that we are talking about. Evidence for parallel universes, time travel, other dimensions, etc, does not exist either. Its a debate based on scientific and spiritual theories. There is no concrete evidence there either. This is not a matter of theories based on physics equations. This is the equivalent of someone saying 'show me evidence that angels don't exist.' 'Give me evidence big foot doesn't exist.' There isn't evidence for the sort of position you propose. Can't be. Maybe you do not understand the definition of evidence.

Think about it. Come up with an example of what evidence could be for proof against aliens or ET visitations? What possibly could count as evidence for this? Just make something up that would count to give me an example.

I am not arguing against ET's or saying they don't exist. What I am saying is that your question and proposition in this thread is bogus.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I don't think most people who support these things are doing so "blindly."

We have evidence to weigh within reason.

I will give you an example. I did jury duty on a case that was circumstantial. So me and the jurors were blind to any direct evidence about the event. We were not blind to evidence to weigh with reason. We reached a conclusion of guilty because we weighed the evidence for and against even though we didn't have any direct evidence to the actual event.

Within ufology you have direct and circumstantial evidence to weigh within reason.

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

This is eyewitness accounts, mass sighting and abduction cases.

Circumstantial evidence is pictures, video, trace evidence and radar reports.

We have Direct and Circumstantial evidence to weigh so we are not coming to these conclusions blindly.

All I'm asking for is the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extraterrestrial beings exist and agains visitation.

In the Jury, we weighed the evidence for and against the defendent. We weigh the evidence for and against things all the time.

If there's no evidence against the proposition then what are skeptics and debunkers debating?



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Like I said, give me one damn example of something that can prove a negative. And talking about a jury is talking about a crime. Juries don't go over scientific theories buddy. You really don't grasp the difference between these things do you?

So again, make something up that would count as evidence against UFO's. Just make something up. See if you can do it. You cannot not provide evidence for a negative of a non-proven scientific or spiritual theory.

You must be very young, because you really are not grasping what evidence and proof are, and the difference between scientific debate and criminal jury cases.
A negative cannot be proven because if something doesn't exist, it would not be there to create proof of its non-existence.

You cannot prove that a unicorn doesn't or has never existed. You cannot prove that flying pigs have never existed. You cannot prove that heaven or hell exists or doesn't exist. Are you getting it yet? This is not a criminal case. This is not even about a scientific equation. This is about mythical creature and asking for proof that they do not exist. The premise of that question or request is bogus.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Again, you keep talking about proving a negative and I never mentioned proof.

This is what skeptics and debunkers do. They want to debate a claim that was never made. Where did I say anything about proof?

I talked about evidence.

If you want to debate the existence of Unicorns, you can debate the evidence for and against the proposition absent any "proof."

So this has nothing to do with proving a negative. I didn't ask you to prove anything.

Like I said, skeptics and debunkers want to skip evidence and jump to proof.

Everything we debate starts with evidence for and against. What skeptics want is proof before they will debate the evidence for or against the proposition.

This is illogical and just plain stupid.

We always to debate evidence for and against before we have proof.

Again, I'm not asking you to prove anything. So when you keep talking about proving a negative it's not making any sense. I'm not asking you to prove anything.

What's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrials/extradimensial being exist and against visitation?

The evidence against unicorns is you don't have pictures, video, eyewitness accounts and mass sightings from police, astronauts, military, pilots and more. You don't have abduction cases, trace evidence and radar reports.

It's a simple question. What's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist and against visitation?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Again, you keep talking about proving a negative and I never mentioned proof.

This is what skeptics and debunkers do. They want to debate a claim that was never made. Where did I say anything about proof?

I talked about evidence.

If you want to debate the existence of Unicorns, you can debate the evidence for and against the proposition absent any "proof."

So this has nothing to do with proving a negative. I didn't ask you to prove anything.

Like I said, skeptics and debunkers want to skip evidence and jump to proof.

Everything we debate starts with evidence for and against. What skeptics want is proof before they will debate the evidence for or against the proposition.

This is illogical and just plain stupid.

We always to debate evidence for and against before we have proof.

Again, I'm not asking you to prove anything. So when you keep talking about proving a negative it's not making any sense. I'm not asking you to prove anything.

What's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrials/extradimensial being exist and against visitation?

The evidence against unicorns is you don't have pictures, video, eyewitness accounts and mass sightings from police, astronauts, military, pilots and more. You don't have abduction cases, trace evidence and radar reports.

It's a simple question. What's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist and against visitation?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]


Buddy, no you can't. Geez you are not even replying to what I am saying. Give me one example that you can make up of an example of evidence of UFO's not existing. Come up with an example. See if you can. Just make up an acceptable example.

Or even using your examples of things that you said could be debated, like unicorns. Give me one example of evidence that unicorns don't exist.

You really do not understand how evidence, debate works. Again, there exists no evidence to back the lack of existence of something like this. Because by sheer logic there cannot be evidence of something not existing.

You really must be either young or very uneducated. I don't mean that in a mean way, but you learn this right away in most universities, especially if you ever take philosophy or physics or critical thinking/reasoning classes.

Again, after multiple requests, you cannot even come up with a fake example of suitable evidence for what you are asking. Why? But it is not possible for evidence to exist, for something not existing. That is logic buddy.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I can give you an example of why this doesn't work, Matrix.

I say "Give me evidence against the theory that there is a monster living in my closet."
To which you would then open my closet, revealing that it's empty.
Unfortunately, all I have to say is "Well, he's not here now, he had to go get some Taco Bell." and you're negative evidence is rendered impotent.

In the same way, I could use the "evidence" of looking into the sky right now as my own reasoning for aliens not existing, but again, maybe they're just not there at this specific point. I'm sure Aliens could enjoy Taco Bell too.

So, when it comes to something existing or not existing, there is no middle ground, and there is no negative evidence. The person saying it exists needs to be the one putting forth evidence, not the person who doesn't believe it.

And Jimmy, you're a trooper, man. I'm interested in his own examples of negative evidence as well.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Evidence for the look is only my supposition, that the bight
UFO we see stuck in the sky is also bright inside.
That would only explain the look which would be a special helmet
and suit for human occupants as well as alien.

Evidence against the alien is plainly all the empty talk and the series
of puppets and artwork that feed on a rouse to expel any one's
demand for the truth as the agents of the technology holders work
their diversions.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
When there's a debate, you always have evidence for and against the underlying subject.

The Shrike: "Evidence is for, not agaisnt."

I never hear any evidence against extraterrestrials and or extradimensial beings. I hear a lot of evidence for things like abduction accounts, pictures, video, radar, trace evidence and more. I never hear any evidence against.

TS: "Evidence to prove the reality of et or ed doesn't exist; no one has provided any."

We have found liquid water on Mars, there's billions of earth like planets, we look at things like extremaphiles,extra dimensions, the multiverse and more.

TS: "No evidence for billions of earth-like planets."

What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth? What evidence out there prohibits alien abductions from occuring?

TS: "All there is is us. We are the evidence and there is no evidence for anything or anyone else. Alien abductions exist in the realm of the human mind, not outside of it. Hearsay is not evidence and hearsay is all you can find for alleged alien abductions. Too much TV."


[edit on 9-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join